Archived thread 1010760 from Resolution Centre. Markdown source: Resolution_Centre/thread_1010760_Acts_of_god,_allowed.md
I would be interested to know what the forum rules are regarding quoting. For me to quote is to do exactly that, quote.
My question is this.
Is it ok for a mod to be playing god?
My post: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6341400&postcount=33 Mods take on it: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=6346155&postcount=45
Surely this is not good forum etiquette? Would this behaviour be ok for me?
Also, a previous at of god. http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=996600
The Mod was not changing your post, but making a point. I see no breach of the COC here .
slavik quoted me, but edited what I said in that quote. (And by doing so completely switched the meaning of what I was saying)
I would expect him to quote exactly what I said and then put his edit under the quote.
[E.g.]
(What I actually said)
This abstraction from memory management is your friend.
tinny, dont you mean.... This abstraction from memory management is your crutch. [/E.g.]
The above would keep what I actually said in tact and would not mislead to argue a personal agenda. I have never talked about what is or isnt my crutch here!
How about this example.....
KiwiNZ said: The Mod has effectively changed your post by miss quoting you to make their point. I see a breach of the COC here .
Is it ok for me to miss quote you KiwiNZ?
I dont expect much to come from this, I would just like this mods behavior to be noted. I see a pattern emerging in this mods behavior.
In my view it is not acceptable for a mod to modify what people say or close threads because they feel like it. (are they God?)
It wasn't a quote to be an accurate quote , it was clearly an edited quote to make a point . It is clear from his post that is how it was meant , it was not intended to be a misleading use of your post.
KiwiNZ said: It wasn't a quote to be an accurate quote , it was clearly an edited quote to make a point .
It is clear from his post that is how it was meant , it was not intended to be a misleading use of your post. So it is fine to miss quote as long as you are trying to make a point.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I agree with KiwiNZ on this one. This is a popular technique stemming mostly from memes on Slashdot and other technology discussion communities to purposely and obviously mis-quote someone to make a point or as a form of humor. I don't see anything wrong with this as long as it's not purposely attempted in a subtle and deceiving manner, such as your quote modifications above.
It's clear Slavik meant it in the way the meme is correctly used, with the catchphrase "There. fixed it for you" and emphasis on the part deliberately changed.
See other uses of this meme from a simple google search:
jdong said: I don't see anything wrong with this as long as it's not purposely attempted in a subtle and deceiving manner, such as your quote modifications above.
Ok. I will be using this technique in future.
In future I will use bold and "There fixed it for you" (or something like that) to do it correctly. Seems like a grey area to me though and an unnecessarily annoying way to get your point across that is sure to spark future flame wars.
But I accept your decision.